It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sen. Durbin: Obama Will 'Borrow the Power' to Solve Immigration

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
This is definitely a catch 22.

On one hand I do not like Obama using executive actions to get things done. I understand it has it's uses...but this is not one of those cases where I believe it should be used.

On the other, it seems the Republicans are purposely dragging their feet in order to force Obama to act.....and then will make a big stink about him taking action.

So it's hard to say which side is trying to do the right thing.


Easy: Neither. Same coin. Same result either way: We the People, screwed over. Nuts to both Dems and Reps.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

I have looked in to this a bit and my research keeps taking me back to the 2009 Honduran Coup as being a prime cause of immigration.....combined with poor conditions in Guatemala and El Salvador.

I don't believe the DREAM act applies to any of these people as it had pretty strictly defined criteria for people to receive citizenship. One of those criteria being that the person had to be in this country at least 5 years before the DREAM act was passed.

Perhaps Issa didn't know that.

There is also some information out there that claims immigration from those countries have been high for a few decades and now the numbers are quickly rising because we are able to get a better count.....which they could not do before.

I know it's easier to blame the WH and Obama, but if we are going to be honest with ourselves it appears we need to look beyond our political stubbornness to approach this issue logically.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: St Udio

Right, because a newscorp subsidiary is always a trusted news outlet.

Next time try the weekly world news maybe bat boy has something to do with it lol

I see you can't attack the argument made in St. Udio's quote.

When the argument is unassailable, attack the source.

Harte



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well, here is the issue.

The way our Govt was designed was to stop this kind of stuff.

Regardless if they are dragging their feet, either side, that is the way it was created.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

It's hard to attack fantasy. Especially when it creates a core part of someone's reality.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Harte

It's hard to attack fantasy. Especially when it creates a core part of someone's reality.

"Fantasy?"
Is this quote somehow not real?


“This flood is going to mean children dying trying to get in,” California Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News Radio.

“And more important, children coming here with the anticipation that somehow they’re going to be granted citizenship and then they will bring the rest of their family . . . that’s a false narrative,” Issa said.

He and others critics blame the Obama administration’s DREAM act, which has young people from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and other countries believing they can cross the border freely.
“When the president made a decision that he was not going to enforce immigration laws . . . he created a real magnet to pull in a great deal of new illegals, particularly children, who would qualify under the president’s own executive DREAM Act,” Issa told Fox.

The surge is largely due to US policies, according to a Border Patrol intelligence memo.

SNIP
According to the memo, which was brought up at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, agents grilled more than 200 non-Mexican immigrants in late May, and 95 percent of them said they headed to the US because they’d heard they could get a “permiso,” or “free pass” simply by showing up at the border.

“This information is apparently common knowledge in Central America and is spread by word of mouth, and international and local media,” the memo reads. “A high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their family members in the US urged them to travel immediately, because the United States government was only issuing immigration ‘permisos’ until the end of June 2014.”

You call it fantasy. So, what part is fantasy? The part you have no reasonable argument against?

Which part do you have a reasonable argument against?

In light of other acts by the administration (for example, this one) I find your characterization of this as "fantasy" is, in itself, a fantasy.

Harte



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I thought that as well, but I believe the constitution did not originally touch on this issue at all.

It wasn't until the 14th amendment was put in to place that we started to define what a "citizen" is and further defined it with the Immigration and Nationality act back in the 50's.

Here is a quote from George Washington.....just to spark some thought:


The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

Pretty much what I thought.

See with the simple return method of deportation there's no formal record. Might as well install a revolving door on the boarder.

Formal removal is better because there's a record. Then if the person returns, they can be formally charged, then removed, or jailed.

Your idea, however, well, genocide is usually frowned upon in civilized societies. The mass graves, the bad press, the concentration camps. Of course you don't want to pay to feed them, so starvation will do some of the work for you. But I think that some people will have issues with your mass killing plan.


oh, stop with the dramatics, and hyperbole...

firstly, you make WAY too many assumptions, and you "put words in my mouth", so to speak....

i never said i was just for simple removal...as i said, deportation is deportation....the only real way a record means anything is if you have fingerprints, and maybe a DNA sample on file.

jailing them here is stupid, because it gives them what they want...it's not a punishment. execution IS a punishment...i mean, we would kill any foreign invader, we recognized as a threat to the country....like, for example, if the nazis had tried to invade the U.S., we would have killed them, not welcomed them with open arms, and gave them everything they wanted..

same principle here "you're leaving now, you can apply to be a citizen, if you come back illegally again, you're dead." i don't think this is an unfair way to handle things...i mean, do other countries put up with this crap?

nobody said anything about genocide, mass graves, or concentration camps... what is wrong with you, that you would even suggest such awful things?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
I mentioned earlier that this is where the immigration issue is headed.


and i believe i demonstrated how you were wrong.



We have a specific group of people that are so absolutely ignorant and racist that they want them deported and if they ever come back to our country.....let's kill em.


what is ignorant and racist about wanting secure borders? what is ignorant and racist about wanting the law to be enforced? what is ignorant and racist about NOT wanting the crime, disease, lowered property value, increased taxes that come with a lot of them? i don't think anyone here suggested that they should be killed if they ever come back...i believe what was suggested is that they be executed, if they're caught coming back illegally....they're more than welcomed to apply for citizenship, and go through the process like everyone else..



It's sad that it's 2014 and we still live among cavemen.


it's sad that it's 2014, and we still live among the hopelessly stupid.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

The Citizenship clause of the Constitution, imo, is based on the wording used in the legislative section of the Constitution and the requirements it set forth in terms of who can run for a House / Senate seat. That section requires a person to be a US citizen and if they are not they must become a US citizen and have lived in the US for no less than 7 years.

The second issue was how to deal with the founding fathers. Our founding Fathers were not "Natural born American citizens". They were essentially stateless since they revoked their allegiance to the British Crown. A clause had to be entered in order for our founding fathers to do the jobs defined by the Constitution without violating it (citizenship).If they intended for non natural citizens to be able to hold the office of President then they never would have needed to make an exception for the founding fathers.


Citizenship in 2 parts
* - A method had to be developed by the founding fathers to allow for citizens of one country to immigrate to the United States to become US Citizens.

* - A method had to be devised to place restrictions on who can run for President without affecting normal immigration.

The goal was to establish a path without creating many levels of citizenship based on where the individual comes from etc etc etc. Hence the citizenship clause. While anyone can become a US citizen only natural born citizens can hold the office of the president. The right to vote guarantees non natural citizens person a voice in all levels of government and allows that person to become Governor of a State, in addition to Federal elected / appointed positions.

Basic Assumptions
A natural born citizens "allegiance" is to the United States from the start.
An immigrant citizens "allegiance" started with a foreign government and resulted in US citizenship.

Does the second person have a vested interest in seeing the US succeed, even if it means damaging the country he immigrated from? If he were President and a situation comes up where he finds himself at war with his former homeland, can we be assured his actions are based on the good of the US and not his own personal feelings? What if those personal feelings can be used to influence the President in this scenario?


14th Amendment application / Supreme Court Rulings - Citizenship
Since the 14th was applied to the States there have been several SCOTUS rulings on citizenship. These rulings deal with the topic at hand and in my opinion create a better guideline for this area. The US Government cannot revoke the citizenship of a natural born citizen. Those who immigrate to the US and apply for and receive US Citizenship can have that citizenship revoked based on certain criteria. For the most part we see it used with the Nazi war criminal issue and the terrorism issue.

Absent that criteria the only way a US citizen can lose their citizenship is if they revoke themselves through written and verbal communication. The reason this ruling is important goes back to foreign pressure on non natural citizens. A President who can have their citizenship revoked as an immigrant can create a world of chaos in the Domestic area and who knows on the international stage.


25th Amendment - Presidential succession / removal from office
The 25th amendment reaffirms that concept by establishing a means to remove a President from Office - by the Presidents own choice or by the vice President and Cabinet secretaries via written document that state the President is not fit to be President based on criteria. There is no other manner prescribed in the Constitution to remove a President from office.

IF the Founding Fathers intended for a non natural born citizen to be eligible for the Presidency, then there never would have been a reason to break from the crown in the first place. While the straw that broke the Camels back was taxes and representation, issues prior to that was the manner in which the crown controlled their lives without having any input into that process. The leader of a nation must be as vested in their citizens as much as the citizens must be to their leader.

That example can be seen today with the United Kingdom / Commonwealth nations. While those nations, like Canada, are free and can elect their own government, they are still subjects of the crown. The Queen can abolish that elected government and can use a governor general to represent the crowns interest. So while Canadians are in fact Canadian citizens, they are still subjects of the Crown - who is not Canadian.

Should a Canadian immigrate the US and become a US citizen and is able to run and become President, is that person still considered a royal subject? It depends on which nations laws you look at, which in turn creates the concern of non natural citizens becoming President.

Jennifer Granholm - former governor of Michigan - Canadian by birth, became US citizen.
Arnold Schwarzenegger - former Governor of California - Austrian by birth became US citizen.

While we can play the hypothetical all day long, imo, the founders intent was to avoid the hypothetical game and 40 degrees of citizenship by allowing anyone to become a US citizen and by requiring the President of the United States to be a natural born citizen.

We should not confuse ancestry and allegiance. They are not the same thing in this case.





edit on 1-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus


what is ignorant and racist about NOT wanting the crime, disease, lowered property value, increased taxes that come with a lot of them? i don't think anyone here suggested that they should be killed if they ever come back...i believe what was suggested is that they be executed, if they're caught coming back illegally.


Sorry, not trying to invoke godwin's law here, but Hitler said pretty much the same thing.

Don't backpeddle. Seriously genocide isn't the answer.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Yes, I believe it ignorance and racism that motivates some people on immigration. You can see it in their posts on ATS and you can see it in the media. They have their bias' and that's fine. I have mine as well. But they just don't have the balls to admit it and try to mask it in rhetoric.



i don't think anyone here suggested that they should be killed if they ever come back...i believe what was suggested is that they be executed, if they're caught coming back illegally....they're more than welcomed to apply for citizenship, and go through the process like everyone else..




I think I'll just let that stand as it is and let people digest what you just said.



it's sad that it's 2014, and we still live among the hopelessly stupid.


Indeed.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Great history lesson, wish I could star the heck out of it. Unfortunately I think it fell on deaf ears.

Oh and have been commando since 18 years of age.
edit on 1-7-2014 by MarlinGrace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree that this information is very handy an I have learned a bit more from your post. But unfortunately it does not touch on the matter at hand. The criteria needed to run for office has nothing to do with the initial act of immigrating to the US.

They have to immigrate here first before your information applies. This is what the Citizenship clause says:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


This was put in place so that the federal government could protect freed slaves from states that wanted to keep them oppressed.

What exactly does this have to do with immigration...other than federal protection and defining who can or cannot run for office?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Question -
Should a person who breaks the law be afforded special privileges?
Should that same person be rewarded for breaking the law?

I have absolutely no issues with legal immigration. However, to set aside the law and consequences of breaking that law for those in the country illegally says what about how we feel towards those who lawfully emigrate to the US, Some of which must wait years to obtain lawful citizenship.

Why should we enforce immigration laws? Because while some people argue they pay taxes, over all, what they pay in is less than legal US citizens because not all illegal immigrants have social security numbers. The businesses who employ illegals and pay them under the table creates even more issues.

It takes a job away from a person who is lawfully present and seeking employment. The resulting decrease in wage can affect the industry in question when business leaders can make more money by paying less. That action is also offset by the fine amount if they get caught. Specifically the fine received does not adversely affect the business in question. Finally, what a lot of people overlook, is the bulk of the money they earn is in fact sent back to Mexico to their families. That means less money being used in the US, which means a decrease in business, a loss in tax money from sales tax, which is the main source of income for many cities / counties. Also in addition to a W2 employers are required to have the employee fill out an I-9, which is used to verify lawful work status in the US.

The majority if illegal immigrants are in the US for work to better their situation, which I have no issues with if its done lawfully. With no intention of going through the process of becoming a US citizen begs the question - Are they wanting to be US citizens or are they taking advantage of the US economy to better their situation back home, creating a negative impact on the US economy?

Also, the push to prevent laws that require a person to provide identification before they vote creates a major issue. By not requiring verification illegal immigrants can vote in US elections, which in turn nullifies the vote of a US citizen. Issues at the state and local level often come down to closer margins than Federal elections do, which again can create a situation where the interests of illegal immigrants are put ahead of lawful US citizens.

Mexican Immigration laws are draconian when compared to the US immigration laws. How is this administration responsible for the current immigration issues?

By using executive orders to implement the Dream Act.
By using executive orders to try and change immigration laws.
By refusing to enforce existing immigration laws.
By using executive orders to "grant amnesty" to illegals already in the country who do not have a criminal history (violent/felony convictions).
By inflating deportation numbers by including administrative deportations, which have never been included in the deportation numbers until this President. Removing the administrative deportations this administrations claim of having the most deportations of any administration translates into have the least amount of deportations.
By directing the US State Department to work with the Mexican government to advertise the US food stamp program.
By freely admitting to the Public that he will act on his own, bypassing Congress, which is essentially a direct appeal to the Mexican people to come on over.
By making an issue out of the number of children coming across the US border. If this issue were as big as being made out Obama would have used it from day one.
By asking Congress for more and more money for detention facilities / housing of illegal immigrants while refusing to enforce immigration laws.

I can keep going but you get the idea.

Immigration is fine so long as it is lawful.




edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: Im a little Lysdexic today and had to fix some spelling issues.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

yeah, godwin's law...i think it's a bit much too..more of a copout, really..

there are so many differences between the situation in late 30's germany, and the situation here, now, that the nazi comparison is really absurd.

nobody suggested, or is advocating genocide...the fact that you believe anyone is, just shows how out of touch with reality you are...there is absolutely no backpedaling occurring here...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Your post was quite informative and deserves a lot more than one star.




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Yes, I believe it ignorance and racism that motivates some people on immigration. You can see it in their posts on ATS and you can see it in the media. They have their bias' and that's fine. I have mine as well. But they just don't have the balls to admit it and try to mask it in rhetoric.


unlike you? i see plenty of rhetoric from you too...like, for instance, your unwillingness to say "you(daedalus) are a biased, ignorant, racist asshole"...we both know you're talking about me, without actually talking about me...so let's quit pussyfooting, ok?

what I am saying, isn't motivated by ignorance, or "racism"*, it's motivated by first-hand experience with what these people bring with them, and what they do when they get here...

the kind of lawless, disrespectful people who violate our borders on a daily basis, are not the kind of people we need here.



I think I'll just let that stand as it is and let people digest what you just said.


obviously, you disagree...so what is your alternative? we find them, send them home, and then they come right back, and we do it all over again? HauntWok very rightly pointed out that this kind of "revolving door" on the border isn't acceptable, sustainable, or desirable....

the other alternative is that we catch them, send them home, then they come back, we catch them, and stick them in prison? so they get to stay here anyway, AND they don't hafta work..they get free food, free housing, free clothing, and whatever else, and we get to foot the bill for it...the only difference is that they're not taking jobs from americans, and they're not removing money from circulation....not really worth the now increased expenditure associated with subsidizing their existence in prison...

so what would you suggest? i'm not going to "put words in your mouth", so to speak, as you did to me....i would submit to conjecture that you believe that we should give the ones who are already here, amnesty, thus rewarding them for their illegal activities....and that we should just let anyone else in, and hook them up with whatever they need, and completely undercut, and ignore the people who are trying to gain citizenship the right way....i can posit that you may think this, but i can't be sure...is my assessment correct, or incorrect....

additionally, i noticed you completely ignored my other posts to you....i can only assume that your lack of reply is a quiet concession of the associated points...



Indeed.


oh, the old reversal....i see what you did there....

too bad it isn't terribly effective...


* "Racism" is a misnomer, as the only actual "Race" on earth, is humanity.....unless, of course, the aliens have landed, and i didn't get the memo.. -checks the aliens and UFOs section- ...nope, they haven't officially landed yet.... we're ALL human, there is no racism.
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

when i was working for the cable company, i had a guy on my crew from Bolivia...he went through the process, he became a citizen....

he absolutely HATES illegals, for all the reasons you mentioned. he went through all of that to get his citizenship....he earned it, and they just come here, and TAKE everything he worked for...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247


Immigration and the civil rights act have nothing to do with each other. The initial legislation dealing with the status of slaves occurred during the civil war. The Posse Comitatus act was the primary legislation used to restore civility to the Southern States that were under military occupation. Slavery was a states right issue and had nothing to do with immigration, which is a federal government issue. That was followed by the civil rights act of the 1960's and has been defined and expanded ever since.

As I pointed out in my post the Constitution / SCOTUS rulings does define who a natural born citizen is. The President does not have the constitutional authority to sidestep Congress simply because they wont give him what he wants. The President does not have the constitutional authority to "create" legislation by executive orders. The President does not have the constitutional authority to "ignore" SCOTUS rulings.

Our government was not designed to be efficient. The reason for that is so the minority opinion can be heard and get its 15 minutes.

The President does not run the country by himself and to assume other branches of government are required to follow his orders demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of separation of powers. Congress has control of the purse to check the executive and the executive has the veto to check the legislative.

The people of the United States decided that having 2 out of 3 branches of government being controlled by the same party is not something they felt comfortable with. As a result the Democrats lost control of the House. That result is telling the President that compromise is needed when it comes to his legislative agenda. A perfect example of how a President should respond to that type of situation can best be seen with Clinton's administration.

He acknowledged that his agenda would need to change because of the election of Republicans. Pulling an end run around of Congress is a guaranteed way for the President's political agenda to come to a complete stop.

Entering the country without abiding by the law is in fact an illegal act. Doing anything and everything other than deporting them is in fact rewarding them for breaking the law.

If an individual has no respect for the laws in place then there should be no chance in hell they should be allowed to run for President. The oath of office for the President lays out what their requirement is in holding that office. To put your hand on the bible and swear to uphold and faithfully execute the laws of this country is irrelevant when the law was broke to get into the country in the first place.

Hence natural born citizen being a person who was born in the United States.
Hence the reason immigrants are not considered natural born citizens.

Obama has decided to ignore his oath of office by refusing to enforce federal law. He has gone further by deciding citizens of a foreign country are his constituents and the American people are to stupid to know what to do and need the government to act on our behalf.


edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join